No. I'm too busy to look this up.
OK, so just to be clear, you don't know that this potential issue has occured. You have no specific examples or knowledge of any specific cases where this has occured - right?
Nope, the guidelines in that case don't restrict the market to one supplier. The market is open to many, many large suppliers (mostly international).
Keep it simple. The tender recipients may not have latest versions of the MS products. I would stick with Word or pdf, but if in doubt (and the tender document does not specify what format is required), ask the question beforehand.
It is restricting the tender to large suppliers. This in itself is problem enough. My anecdotal evidence suggests that in some cases the criteria goes even further in restricting which company will be successful, to the point that it's reverse engineered.
It is indeed a problem, but it is an explicit, up-front, on the table problem, which is made absolutely clear to suppliers in the tender. To imply that this means the system is rigged is without basis.
So give us the anecdotes - point us to the tenders that were 'reverse engineered' and let us all take a view on this.
That's loser talk.
Will I just make up some stories? A friend of mine said this was the case. The winner has already been chosen before the tendering process, so the tender was designed to make it much easier for that company to win. This is what I heard.
Actually no, that's winner talk.
The real question is; did you friend actually know what he was talking about, or was he looking for excuses to shoot the messenger, and blame someone for his failure. In the absence of any specific evidence, I know which option I think is more likely.
Favouring large suppliers is not evidence of 'rigging'. Favouring large suppliers is evidence of favouring large suppliers - no more, no less. You could make the same arguement about any particular criteria within a tender document, that it favours one supplier over the other. That is not evidence of rigging - just evidence that the tendering organisation is specifying their requirements.
. The opposition even called us to congratulate us on the order when the docs were viewed by them.' If you believe it is, let's get some examples on the table - all the tenders are already in the public domain, so please tell us which specific tenders were written by a supplier, or even which were written in a way that favours a specific supplier'.
Lets be fair here,it does still go on. I was part of a 'successful' tender in the past when I worked for a large multi.
We were not the current supplier either. We met the 2 guys involved twice before the tender was even uploaded to e-tenders and gave them a total price including specifications of the equipment involved. We knew the total amount available for the equipment so included all the bells and whistles to bring it up to the spend amount.
Finally we had all the equipment on order the day before the tender became public. The tender docs were ours practically word for word, so I guess we met all the criteria
I wouldnt dare mention the name of the body involved 9 (not Fas by the way) on any public forum.
Having called a few of my ex colleagues since this post first appeared, it appears this practice is still alive and well in this country.
Lets be fair here,it does still go on. I was part of a 'successful' tender in the past when I worked for a large multi.
We were not the current supplier either. We met the 2 guys involved twice before the tender was even uploaded to e-tenders and gave them a total price including specifications of the equipment involved. We knew the total amount available for the equipment so included all the bells and whistles to bring it up to the spend amount.
Finally we had all the equipment on order the day before the tender became public. The tender docs were ours practically word for word, so I guess we met all the criteria
I wouldnt dare mention the name of the body involved 9 (not Fas by the way) on any public forum.
Having called a few of my ex colleagues since this post first appeared, it appears this practice is still alive and well in this country.
not with the multi any moreWhere's my Karma?
Different gig now complainer
d
In your imagination, with the rest of your makey-up stories about tendering.
So you believe Diddle's stories, but not mine!
Yep - his was first hand information, not pub gossip.
No, it suggests that a tender was rigged.